Petraeus: The Surge is Working, Premature Pull-Out Would Be Devastating

You want to wipe that egg of your face now? I know deckard is not capable of that, but surely you are. By the way, this was said today....Sunday, September 16, 2007

I'll stick with my statement - no one's talking about partition. Certainly not Biden, by his own exact words...today.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296957,00.html

 

No I don't. That's why Deck said a sort of soft partition. That's exactly what it is.

 

You can't even quote your Fox News interview without sliding around in the mud, can you.


WALLACE: Senator, let's talk about this idea of partition, because that is your central idea for Iraq, to...

BIDEN: Not partition.

WALLACE: Well, let me...

BIDEN: Not partition. You keep saying that. It's not partition. Kissinger's not talking about partition. I'm not talking about partition. Gelb's not talking about it.

It's regions within a whole government, with a defined border, with a central government distributing resources and protecting the borders. That's what it is.

WALLACE: Okay.

BIDEN: Not partition.

WALLACE: So to have regional governments with a...

BIDEN: Yes.

WALLACE: ... and divide it, though, along ethnic-sectarian lines — the Kurds, the Shia, the Sunnis...

BIDEN: Right.

WALLACE: The indication seems to be by a margin of more than 2- 1, they don't want — whether you call it partition or regional governments, they don't want it.

BIDEN: Well, the Kurds sure want it. That takes care of about...

WALLACE: I know. They were the one group that does want it.

BIDEN: And the other ones who want it now are — the Shia began to want it.

WALLACE: Actually, not in the poll, they didn't.

BIDEN: The reason the Shia want it — they want to have a — well, look, Chris, polls taken in the middle of a war — I don't know what they mean.

But I do know one thing. I was there last Thursday and I met with the Shia vice president who supports a regional form of government. I met with the Sunni vice president, Hashemi, who said his heart tells him a central government, his head tells him a regional government.

I met with the deputy vice premier of the — the vice prime minister — deputy prime minister who happens to be a Kurd who thinks that's inevitable, the way we're going.

This is about the same thing we did, essentially, in Bosnia. What did we do? We got the world powers in. We got the Russians, the French, the Germans, everybody in one room.

We brought in the warring factions. We sat them in a room and said figure this out, but there's not likely to be a strong central government in Sarajevo that can hold this country together.

Same thing pertains here. This is what you call diplomacy. This is what a president's supposed to do. A president is supposed to bring about a diplomatic solution.

This president is AWOL. He continues to cling to a failed strategy that he somehow thinks relying on a Maliki government or anyone else is going to establish a strong, central, unified government that's going to end this civil war.

And that is an abject failure. It's proven to be a failure. We should get off of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296957,00.html


What Biden is discussing is what he has called in the past "soft partition." He's decided to call it a "regions within a whole government, with a defined border, with a central government distributing resources and protecting the borders. That's what it is." Exactly what I said, except he's dropped "soft partition" from his lexigon.

He has been saying this for a long time, as he's been saying this...

"This president is AWOL. He continues to cling to a failed strategy that he somehow thinks relying on a Maliki government or anyone else is going to establish a strong, central, unified government that's going to end this civil war.

And that is an abject failure. It's proven to be a failure. We should get off of it."


What a trip. NewYorker is obsessed with eggs.



D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney before they Attack Iran.

 

However you want to word-smith it fine.

I said No one is talking partition. You claim that he is ("soft" partition)... But in the interview, Biden clearly communicates that he's not talking partition.

Advocating a central gov't is pretty clear you're not talking about partition, which is what i am saying. So that's that.

 

He says it isn't the word partition but goes on to describe a soft partition.

 

Right, and America is soft-partitioned into 50 states right?

I disagree that he is describing a soft-partition, just a federal-state system that we have here in the U.S. and exists in many other places.

 

Actually more like a confederation of states

 

July 29, 2007

Political Equations
Iraq Math: From One, Make Three

By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON

IS Joe Biden auditioning to be the next secretary of state?

For the record, he says no. Actually, he said, “Hell, no,” during an interview last week. But the thought isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem, even though his poll numbers remain in the cellar among the Democratic presidential hopefuls.

What he does have, that the other Democratic candidates don’t, is a coherent proposal for dealing with the debacle in Iraq that is increasingly picking up steam. Foreign policy analysts, Capitol Hill politicians and even officials in the Bush administration have started sounding positive notes.

“The truth is, we could end up close to the Biden-Gelb proposal,” a senior administration official said, referring to the partition plan that Mr. Biden, along with Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, presented more than a year ago in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times.

“Are we there yet?” the official added. “No.”

But not “Hell, no.”

Mr. Biden’s so-called soft-partition plan — a variation of the blueprint dividing up Bosnia in 1995 — calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions, held together by a central government. There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella.

“The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests,” Mr. Biden and Mr. Gelb wrote in their Op-Ed on May 1, 2006. “We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/w...ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Resort to 'Soft-Partition' Repair in Iraq?

The Washington Times, January 8, 2007

Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies
Edward P. Joseph, Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

As the nation and world await President Bush's speech on what could be his last chance to get Iraq policy right, it is time to face the reality that a multiethnic, integrated, democratic Iraq is probably no longer attainable. The sectarian-based responses to Saddam's execution are only the latest proof of this fact.

Proposals for a U.S. troop surge, more American trainers in Iraqi army and police forces, and a reinvigorated economic recovery package including a job creation program all have serious arguments in their defense. But at a time when nearly 5,000 people are dying and 100,000 Iraqis are being driven from their homes each month, it is also time to develop a backup plan for ending the civil war that we have proven unable to prevent.

Many have already concluded our backup plan for Iraq should be packing up and going home -- or, at most, redeploying to Iraq's borders to protect displaced civilians and deter its neighbors from entering into the civil war. But there is at least one promising Plan B that, while hardly ideal, would be far better for America, Iraq, and the broader region than complete defeat, all-out civil war, and the possibility of broader regional conflict. It would build on Sen. Joe Biden and former Assistant Secretary Leslie Gelb's idea of a soft partitioning of Iraq -- moving away from centralization toward a loose federation (akin to Bosnia) of three largely autonomous regions in which present and future oil revenues would be shared equitably. But it would go beyond Biden/Gelb to confront directly the sectarian strife now raging in and around Baghdad. Rather than striving for a "neutral Baghdad" as Mr. Biden and Mr. Gelb propose, the Iraqi government would assist threatened minorities relocate to where they feel safer -- helping them find new jobs and housing in the process.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20070108.htm


Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: “I'm sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely that this will emerge out of the conflict that we are now witnessing.”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “[T]he idea of the… constitution of Iraq [as] written, which allows for and mandates, in fact, a great deal of regional autonomy, is appropriate. I think there are certain central powers that a government needs. Some of it has to do with the oil revenue and various other parts. So without endorsing any plan, I do think reality here sets in that there will be regional autonomy.”

“[W]hen asked about Senator Biden's plan, I have said that, in fact, it is an attempt to keep the country together, which I do believe is what it is about. I'm just talking about in the long run what might happen that we do have to watch out for. But I think it is very clear from my reading of the plan that it is done in order to keep the country together. And I do think that is an essential point.”

Former Secretary of State James Baker: “…I was and still am interested in the proposal that Senator Biden and Les Gelb put forward with respect to the idea that ultimately you may end up with three autonomous regions in Iraq, because I was worried that there are indications that that might be happening, in fact, on the ground anyway and, if it is, we ought to be prepared to try and manage the situation. So we have a sentence in our report that says, ‘If events were to move irreversibly in this direction, the United States should manage the situation to ameliorate the humanitarian consequences, contain the violence and minimize regional stability.”

Former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke: "Sen. Joe Biden and Les Gelb have advocated what they call, in a reference to the negotiations that ended the war in Bosnia in 1995, a "Dayton-like" solution to the political situation -- by which they mean a looser federal structure with plenty of autonomy for each of the three main groups, and an agreement on sharing oil revenue."

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): “My own view is that… we have to continually advise our friends in Iraq to get on with this question of the division of the oil money or the dedication of the various groups, as well as how a federation can work.

“It may not be an absolute division of the country into three parts, but at least some ways in which the Kurds, who already have a great deal of autonomy, are joined by a lot of Shiites that want the same thing and Sunnis that are worried that they're going to be left out of the picture. And that takes heavy lifting. Politically, a lot of objections even to bringing it up before their congress, but we have to keep insisting that they do. That has to be on the agenda.”

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I think this idea of maybe the three autonomous regions within one country may be the one that we start to move more and more towards.”

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): “Allowing the Kurds, Sunni and Shia to govern their own territories while sharing in Iraq's oil revenues through a national revenue stream could help quell the bloodletting.”

David Brooks, New York Times columnist: “Senator Biden is the one exception. What happened Friday was significant with this intelligence report. It drove a missile right into the Bush policy. Because what it said was these two people, Sunni and Shia, will never get back together. That destroys the Bush policy. It drove a missile to the Democratic policy because it says we can't get out. So what's the other option? To me it's the soft partition idea that Joe Biden, lone among the leading Democrats, has been in favor of.” [ABC This Week, 2/4/07]

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=265355




NewYorker was saying something about Biden and his plan for Iraq? He might want to read Biden's own senatorial website.



D&D. Impeach Bush and Silly Wankers.

 

Biden's denial of the term "partition" is pathetic. He needs to go back to being a senator and forget about being a double-talking presidential candidate. I just lost a chunk of respect for him.

 

Not sure about that. Partition is establishing completely separate states.

When our country was founded, it was established much as a confederation of states. It wasn't like today where we're more federal. The states or regions of 235 years ago had the very same concerns as the regions in Iraq - being overlorded by the a central federal gov't.

Biden isn't talking about partition, he's talking about striking a balance between federal and state power

 

Whatever. For the last year or so, a ton of people are calling his plan exactly what it is: Partition. None of them define partition the way you do. It is NOT creating 3 separate countries, but cutting up the ONE country into 3 separate autonomous regions (Shia, Kurd and Sunni) that are united by some form of central government. If you prefer then: "Soft" partition. Is that better? For the sake of discussion on the forum, there is no need to dice words. On the campaign trail it's understandable but regrettable.

 

i wouldn't even call it a soft partition. it's still one country. as i said, it's no different than the 13 original states.

 

Which would be a soft partition rather than a firm partition. If the people who's profession it is to analyze it and write about it are calling it a soft partition as Deckard's article is pointing out, then I think we are safe to assume that those of us who also use the term aren't pulling it out of our ass.

If you refuse to call it that, then fine, but doesn't mean it isn't the same thing.

 

Nobody; I repeat NOBODY, is saying it isn't one country. Suit yourself. Just last week you were calling for partition. How is your position different from Biden's?

 

yeah, ok, but you didn't learn that the U.S. was soft-partitioned to make a more perfect union. The original point was that you said that i was misinformed or somehow ignorant because i stated no one was talking about partition and that in fact Biden was.

So I am just countering your character attack with his words, "I am not talking about partition". Now you have to weasil out with the whole "soft" partition argument, which he's not even using. Why don't you just apologize for attacking someone unjustly?

 

I still believe partition is the way to go. I think keeping it one country is a fool's good solution meant to appease Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, and Turkey. Realistically, we have to slice the country apart like was done with Yugoslavia.

Very different from what Biden is proposing.

 

It bothers me that we invade, conquer, make a big mess and now decide how to clean it up. If there is a truly democratic elected Iraqi government then what does our opinion matter about their future? I'm tired of hearing about civil war and training the Iraqi. They can do as well as we are doing. Is this some guilt response because we made the mess? Why not withdraw?

We could always give them some more of that 'shock and awe' if they don't behave.

Actually, how did Sadaam rule Iraq?
1. He had the backing of military force.
2. He set up a government that he could control.
3. He fought against all opposed.

edit-

I shouldn't be extremely sarcastic- I believe our military has the best of intentions and our politicians have the worst and this is a sad combination.

I do not in any way believe our occupation is remotely similar to what Sadaam did. Saddam was a very evil dictator.

I believe our occupying forces are doing the very best in a very unfortunate situation.

I just think we should begin the withdrawal process. We shouldn't have more than military advisors in Iraq one year from now.

I think we set them up a government and they must deal with our mess. It isn't right, but it wasn't right from the beginning.

 

For lots of reasons, the U.S. cannot propose a split up of Iraq at this time. If the soft partition idea doesn't work at all or if it only works for a given period of time, creating 3 countries would be the way to go. But for now, it would be a mistake to propose this idea. As has been said by many, the way we withdraw and reach a final outcome is just as important as the outcome itself.

 

I believe it's better to do it now and avoid a potential war later which could destablize the region. Our allies in the middle east will not be happy, but we can't cower to them ya know.

 

Completely agree on the "do it now" but the soft partition idea has the same effect of separating the parties into self-governing regions and gives them a trial run at complete separation. On the diplomatic side, we also avoid antagonizing countries in the region and wounding our credibility any more than we have to. It's important we be seen as resisting the idea. We need the support of the Sunni nations for whatever happens to Iraq.